Sludge Watch ==> Bedford Virginia Planning Commission shows caution in biosolids ordinance

[Maureen Reilly]

Planning Commission shows caution in biosolids ordinance

By John Barnhart
Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:47 AM EDT



Although two members of the planning commission wanted a stronger biosolids 
ordinance, the majority chose a more cautious approach.

A committee consisting of Lynn Barnes, representing District 2, Steve 
Stevick, representing District 5, and Robin Hartman, representing District 
6, has been looking at an ordinance to regulate the substance since this 
past winter. The ordinance that had originally been looked at had been 
forwarded to the board of supervisors by a citizens group.

"I have never fully endorsed that ordinance, " commented Stevick.

However Stevick felt that the substance poses a hazard to the county's 
citizens and environment and wanted the county to adopt the strongest 
possible ordinance. Barnes echoed his sentiment.

They wanted to recommend an ordinance that takes a model biosolids 
ordinance, developed by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO), and 
adds language from the federal Clean Water Act. This, according to Barnes, 
does not ban the land application of sludge. Under the ordinance, however, 
the county would reserve the right to enforce the federal law if it found 
that a biosolids' spreading operation violated that law.


Steve Wilkerson, representing District 3, questioned whether the county had 
the legal authority to do this. County Attorney Carl Boggess also added a 
word of caution. Boggess said that the VACO ordinance, by itself, is above 
legal reproach. The Clean Water Act, however, can't be read in a vacuum. It 
must be looked at in the light of the fact that Virginia is a Dillon's Rule 
state.

"If it [a county biosolids ordinance] includes that language it will be 
subject to legal challenge," Boggess noted.

"I think it is the VACO ordinance that gives us the first step," Commission 
Chairman Frederic Fralick said.

Curtis Stephens, representing District 7, agreed, noting that the VACO 
ordinance has not been challenged in court. He said that the county will 
have a problem if it initiates local control beyond what the Commonwealth 
allows. He moved that the planning commission recommend the VACO ordinance 
to the board of supervisors.

Barnes disagreed with this approach. He said that this ordinance was 
developed by the Biosolids Council, which consists of companies that spread 
sludge on farm fields. He wanted something stronger than the VACO ordinance.



Wilkerson noted that monitoring biosolids will be expensive. Adopting the 
VACO ordinance makes it more likely that the county will get state funding 
for a monitoring program. Stevick, however, countered that the amount of 
money the county will get is based on the number of tons of the substance 
that is being spread in Bedford County.

The planning commission accepted Stephens motion by a 5-2 vote with Barnes 
and Stevick casting the dissenting votes.

Stevick had come under fire from some farmers who use biosolids on their 
fields, during the citizen comment period that preceded the meeting. Two of 
them said that he should have recused himself from any debate or vote on the 
issue because he had a conflict of interest. The basis of this conflict of 
interest is that he lives near the farm on Otterville Road that Synagro used 
as a sludge temporary storage pit for two winters.

"I see nothing to date that anything Mr. Stevick has done constitutes a 
conflict of interest," said Boggess.

Boggess said that he has never been asked to issue a formal conflict of 
interest opinion, but noted that Stevick would have to have a direct 
financial interest in the issue for a conflict of interest to exist. Boggess 
noted that, although Stevick's property could be affected by the county's 
action on the issue, so could 5,000 other people in the county. He said that 
this was an issue of general interest in Bedford County and Stevick has the 
right to speak his opinion.

A copy of the VACO ordinance, which is five pages long, can be obtained from 
VACO's Web site at www.vaco.org in PDF format.

In other business, the planning commission tabled a special review project 
for New London Academy. The project is for a new storage building and 
involves the demolition of an existing structure. Fralick expressed 
irritation that nobody from the school board or the school division comes to 
make presentations on school issues. The presenter, Jason Stewart, was 
unable to answer any of Fralick's questions on the project, or Barnes' 
question about whether the building to be demolished had any historical 
significance. Stephens said that it's an affront to the planning commission 
that nobody from the school division comes forward to answer questions.

The vote to table action on the project passed with Stephens, Barnes, 
Stevick and Fralick voting in favor. Rick Crockett, representing District 1, 
Wilkerson and Hartman voted against tabling the project.

http://www.bedfordbulletin.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/news03.txt